Seeing as the allegedly Liberal, feminist blogger “Pareta” doesn’t allow comments or permit trackbacks on her shitty little website, it seems pretty darn ripe calling Liberal MP Keith Martin a “spineless white man who hates gun control” and oddly quipping that “Tanning beds are to skin as Keith Martin is to the Liberal Party.” Exactly WTF does that mean?

The nitwit in question (appropriately self described as being “young, dumb, and full of glum”) might also benefit from educating herself a little about the riding of Esquimalt–Juan de Fuca (where I happen to live these days) before dismissively and quite incorrectly labeling it as “rural” — not that there’s anything wrong with that; but in fact, it’s a diverse mix of urban, suburban and rural communities.

Finally, it’s a highly dubious distinction indeed when one also gets sarcastically called out by Kate McMillan (of all people) and the pitchfork wielding mob at SDA as an example of “The Tolerant Left”…

Update: A predictably infantile response from the gutless, anonymous, comment-free “Pareta”… For the record, I wasn’t so much “offended” by her lazy and snide post so much as ashamed to be politically associated in any way with someone so catastrophically ignorant.

The Liberal Party used to be an old boys party. Now its just an immature boys party. Keep attacking women Liberals, as well as all other women for that matter. There certainly won’t be many voting Liberal in the next election given the way they are treated on this and other Liblogs blogs.

That Pareta is a woman is completely beside the point. As a matter of fact, when I first wrote up this post I wasn’t certain about the sex of the blogger in question and couched everything in an ambivalent “his/her” manner. Then I looked closer at the Blogger profile and noted it indicated female.

As for the gist of your comment, in my world women are fair game for “attack” whatever their political affiliation may be if, in my opinion, they happen to be deranged. Why should they be held to a different standard than male nutjobs?

And with respect to your asinine remark about the way women are treated on this blog, might I suggest you go take a flying fuck at the moon.

Martin is a fiscal conservative and deficit hawk so I think that’s what drew him to the Reform Party at the time, but he’s socially very liberal (somewhat libertarian even) and while there was some overlap with the ideology of the Reform/Alliance on a theoretical level in that regard, in practical terms I believe he found it an untenable position given the religious influenced brand of paleo-conservatism that was prevalent in the CRAP movement at the time to continue on with them.

I don’t agree with him on certain issues, but I do like the fact that he’s not just another mute potted plant or slavish “Yes Man” for the party line. Generally speaking, he reflects my values and that’s why I’ve voted for him in the past.

Is that what they are? And you and Keith are trying to pull them towards the mainstream, are you? How noble of both of you. What kind of musical accompanyment would you both prefer when Hollywood does your bio-pic? Tubas? Kazoos? What?

I don’t know what to make of Keith Martin. I don’t know what attracted him to Reform in the first place (although I know of one libertarian who did…was a candidate even…and abandoned them quickly when he found what a bunch of freaks they were). I think the Liberal Party is a natural home for a socially-liberal libertarian like himself, but I wonder just how good a fit it is and how willing he is to compromise.

BCL — I don’t know that Keith Martin is actively trying to pull anyone this way or that — I rather suspect that he’s not interested in doing any such thing. He’s kind of an independent-minded guy who generally affiliates himself with Liberal positions with some notable exceptions (e.g., scrapping the HRC). In my book that’s a pretty good place to be. I’ve heard that he’s getting out of politics and likely won’t be running again after his squeaker of a victory last time around (which should make you happy, even though I guarantee you that the next Liberal candidate will get thoroughly trounced in this riding — probably coming in a distant third behind the Tony DeSouza and whomever the NDP put up to the fight). And if you want to wager on that prediction, I’ll be happy to oblige…

I believe – if I interpret her statement correctly – that she is comparing Keith to the cancer caused by tanning beds. Tanning beds are known to cause cancer, and I think (based on her previous posts about “Better Know An MP”) she feels MPs that do not support gun control are a problem for the party. At least, that’s my interpretation.

I kind of like her blog (honestly), because I think she is “stongly opinionated” – as you are (which is a reason we like to read you too – you’re not scared to tell someone to “f off”). As a big tent party, seeing the aggressive debate of issues is a good thing.

Oh… and I like Keith as a person… Nice guy. Don’t agree with all his ideas (and I believe I’ve posted about some MPs’ gun control votes), but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t pick him over the Con and Dipper choices in the same riding. As a Liberal MP, he probably is in agreement with most of my political ideals…

BCL — You’re entitled to your opinion of course, but he’s been a pretty good MP for the most part as far as I’m concerned — very involved in local concerns and quite representative of the mixed political opinions of this particular neck of the woods (it’s a fairly solid NDP seat provincially, by the way).

I’m not familiar with Paretta’s blog, although I’ve run across it a few times in the past for reasons I forget. Can’t say I’m terribly impressed with someone who thinks that Mean Girls is “the greatest movie of all time.”

Basically, she’s nothing more than a juvenile twatwaffle. Hardly much of a credit to the LPC cause.

It’s often a sore point that Bloggin’ Tories don’t call out their more offensive compatriots… well, in that spirit the same can be said for liberal bloggers that turn a blind eye to some of crackpot haters and loons inhabiting our end of the websphere.

Ti-Guy — I don’t really feel like spending the holidays picking fights and to be honest I don’t visit the Liblogs board much these days in any case — this was just one of those things that came across the transom via Twitter and kind of pissed me off.

Tomm — Heh. I actually voted for Kilgour when I lived in Edmonon-Strathcona back in the day.

I wasn’t really aware that “gun control” was such a hot topic — it certainly isn’t around here — so why it’s necessary for this person to demonize various Liberal “white men” on that basis quite escapes me.

I suspect she has personal “issues” that have nothing whatsoever to do with guns and politics.

this was just one of those things that came across the transom via Twitter and kind of pissed me off.

The evil that is Twitter. It is unstoppable.

I used to go to this site periodically, but I decided that giving myself little cuts on my legs was more enjoyable.

On that note, you should listen to who was chosen to give the 2009 Dalton Camp lecture. Sue Gardner, the journalist-cum-techno-exuberant who “transformed” cbc.ca and who still thinks she’s practising journalism. Of particular note is her enthusiasm for the “Birther crowd.” The fact that these people had political support in Congress escaped her completely.

Zounds, Tomm. So, is it still “drivel” to suggest that Harper is less of a prime minister than was Nobel laureate Lester Pearson?

I guess we must now be seeing the Walrus-reading incarnation of Tomm. I’m sure his psyche is sufficiently disarticulated to admit of a myriad personalities, each with its concomitant principles/values/morals/ethics/citizenships, etc.

At any rate, keep talking like that, Tomm, and you’ll tease me into the quixotic assumption that a political IQ and a basic integrity still survive in you, though with fading vital signs and buried beneath the decomposing corpses of apostolic partisanship, Prairie inferiority complex and Canada-hating defeatism in that abandoned, dilapidated, nettle-strewn shambles of a necropolis that passes for your civic conscience.

Ti-Guy — I didn’t note anything terribly objectionable about her lecture. She wasn’t exactly enthusiastic about the “birther” crowd but more praising the fact that new media allowed people to be exposed to their nutty conspiracy theories.

I didn’t note anything terribly objectionable about her lecture. She wasn’t exactly enthusiastic about the “birther” crowd but more praising the fact that new media allowed people to be exposed to their nutty conspiracy theories.

But to what benefit? We all know crazy people are out there. The story she missed or was indifferent to, was that these crazy people had high-level support in Congress.

This is supposed to be a lecture honouring excellence in journalism, not the techniques of communication.

though with fading vital signs and buried beneath the decomposing corpses of apostolic partisanship, Prairie inferiority complex and Canada-hating defeatism in that abandoned, dilapidated, nettle-strewn shambles of a necropolis that passes for your civic conscience.

Hmm. Let’s see. She closes her response with “xoxo”. She appears to think that the cringe-worthy and clumsily executed porn reference in the self-descriptor “young, dumb and full of glum[?]” is actually clever. Her blog’s banner promises occasional “commentary on Britney”.

I think you’re engaging in a flame war with a fifteen-year-old girl, Red, or worse–an unemployed, cross-dressing fifty-year-old man posing as a fifteen-year-old girl. In either case, it would probably be beneath you…way, way beneath you.

I am afraid, Red, SF is right. It is sort of like the blog of an early pop culture twentysomething, very flippant and narcissistic. I am surprised that person didn’t put some self-referential nonsense like “I am a mystery for which you can only see in these few words.” I have actually given up on commenting on such places because trying to explain a dissenting opinion for something as pointless as a pop culture trope (I think the kids now enjoy this show called Glee ) is a waste of time. Shocking, I know, but sometimes I like to point out to the powerful pop culture consumers better alternatives, which incidentally are the templates most of the garbage rips off today.

In this case, ‘pareta’ seems like Jane Taber in first year university; all of this is probably just one big entertainment exercise, duplication with no original thought. When the pop culture references start coming out, you know she should be ignored.

I think you’re being overly harsh. She *is* young and probably too cynical, but the link she provided in her response to you is actually quite interesting and timely.

I just remember this interview on the CBC a while back between Jack Layton and some corporate spokestwit who took offence at Layton’s insinuation (or assertion, I can’t remember exactly) that gas companies were gouging consumers, which in fact they were.

Ti-Guy — I actually did read the linked article before making that update and, as I pointed out, it wasn’t a matter of being offended by her post, but more being appalled at her lazy ignorance and unwarranted attack. Maybe that’s a distinction without much of a difference, but I don’t see them as the same… I can’t really think of anything that truly offends me.

From what I’ve heard, Martin represents his consituients very well. He makes himself heard when it matters, and not in a Jack Layton kind of way. I may not like his choice of political party these days, but against a weak or even a moderate strength Tory, I’d take a Martin anytime.